America's religion - essay 1

[fpb]

The heart of the conflict between conservatives and liberals in America is religious. Although some conservatives are not Christian and many liberals retain for various reasons a claim to Christian identity, nonetheless the claim that sets them at each other's throat is simple - simple and tremendous, because it implies a claim on the whole nation

Comments

[inverarity]

many liberals retain for various reasons a claim to Christian identity

That seems very carefully worded so as to imply that no liberals are actually Christians, even if they claim to be. Was that your intent?

Liberals say: America was founded as, and remains, a secular country, whose organization has no organic connection with any kind of religion, and certainly not with Christianity.

I don't really know too many liberals who'd go that far. Of course anyone who knows history knows that religion, and specifically Christianity, was very much a part of the nation's identity from the beginning.

However, whether or not America was founded as a "secular" country depends on your meaning. Was the population, and were the guiding principles of the founders, largely secular? No. But the government was very carefully set up so as to leave no direct connection between church and state. I don't think any of the founders envisioned an atheist nation, no. However, I do think (contrary to what many modern evangelicals believe) that they envisioned a nation in which not everyone, and perhaps not even the majority, would be Christian, or even religious, at all.

[fpb]

Well, for a start, if they did, they would be wrong. Counting Unitarians, as I do, not to be Christian, it is certainly the case that the Christian proportion of the American population is as large now as it was in 1783, possibly larger; and certainly closer to the commanding heights of politics, business and even culture than it was at a time when everyone who was anyone was Deist, Unitarian and/or Freemason. But I shall deal with this in my next essay or two.

[fpb]

That seems very carefully worded so as to imply that no liberals are actually Christians, even if they claim to be. Was that your intent?

Yes and no. You have to bear in mind that I regard the whole phenomenon of Christianity from the viewpoint of Rome. A Baptist, to me, is certainly a Christian, but I would have some serious issues with serious and central features of his/her faith. By the same token, anyone who subscribes to the sort of attitudes represented by President Obama - for whom, as you may have observed, I have rather more respect than most of his opponents - may sincerely believe in the Trinity, in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, and in personal salvation and eternal life, but I would still have huge issues with many important features of their lives.

[fellmama]

You know, I've had this argument with several atheist friends IRL. They seem to have trouble grasping that my definitions of who is a "Christian" and who is a "person I agree with" don't have a whole lot in common.

Well done on the analysis, by the way.

[inverarity]

I fear this is one of the reasons you've had trouble getting your book published. You are quite careless at times in communicating the nuances of what you're trying to say.

I'm still not entirely sure whether what you are trying to say is, "Yes, liberals can be Christians, I just think they're really, really wrong about some of their beliefs," or "No, liberals aren't really Christians even if they think they are, because their beliefs are contrary to Christianity."

(Replace "liberals" with "Obama" in the above paragraph, if you like.)

And I'm also not sure whether the ambiguity is because you're waffling, or because you just don't realize that you are not being clear.

I know you're a Catholic and you therefore believe that all non-Catholics have it wrong to some degree. I also know that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Protestants as Christian, even if they're "wrong." So you don't need to give me a lecture on the viewpoint of Rome.

However, at least here in the U.S., there are an awful lot of people who are even more selective about who is a "real" Christian. They don't just exclude, say, non-Trinitarians, as you do, but pretty much anyone who disagrees with them about anything. In their minds, what they believe is what Jesus believes, and if you disagree with Jesus, you're not a Christian.

So, "liberals aren't Christians" is a very common sentiment, even if rarely expressed quite so bluntly.

[fpb]

It sounds like you're blaming me for the oddities in your own country. I should try to explain that I don't suffer from the ecclesiology of Jack T,Chick or from the Christology of Jerry Falwell? Why? Incidentally, the book I did not get published (except on the Internet) was about the history of Britain between 407 and 597, and had only tangentially to do with Christianity.

If you can subscribe to every article in the Nicene Creed, you are a Christian. This excludes Arians such as the Latter-Day Saints, Unitarians, and Mormons (because of their belief that the Godhead is a perfected man rather than something superior and unique). That is not to say that you cannot be one of those and be a very fine human being; I have had Mormon friends, and my admiration for Washington and Lincoln is immense. But as a matter of description, a crook and murderer who believes in the Holy Trinity, in the divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and in final judgment and everlasting life, is a Christian; and a self-denying, constructive, enduring hero who does not, is not. As for how God will deal with them, I believe the hero will get a wonderful surprise - and the murderer will not be surprised at all.

Getting back to it....

[fpb]

...to your first question, I mean, and looking back: what I had intended to say was that, though there are plenty of believers in the liberal movement, the movement itself is alien to, if not downright hostile to, religion. The individuals who belong to it find their own reasons to support a policy which is based at least in part on secularism as a principle. That is not to doubt their faith, but to qualify the movement they belong to.